Terry Jones Claims First Amendment Rights Were Violated - Think Atheist2015-03-03T19:07:35Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/terry-jones-claims-first?xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThat's the best argument I've…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-05-15:1982180:Comment:6621372011-05-15T23:12:17.379ZRyan E. Hoffmanhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RyanEHoffman
<p>That's the best argument I've read on here yet re: free speech zones. I will have to think on that. In the meantime...</p>
<p>Spitting, jostling, shoving, etc. is not free speech. I do not support that. While I do support their right to say whatever, wherever, unwanted physical contact is still a crime along with other things that are not included in free speech. I think that once you cross that barrier, you are a criminal, but not before. </p>
<p>That's the best argument I've read on here yet re: free speech zones. I will have to think on that. In the meantime...</p>
<p>Spitting, jostling, shoving, etc. is not free speech. I do not support that. While I do support their right to say whatever, wherever, unwanted physical contact is still a crime along with other things that are not included in free speech. I think that once you cross that barrier, you are a criminal, but not before. </p> Yes, well I like to get down…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6404292011-04-28T22:04:41.151ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
<p>Yes, well I like to get down to brass tacks on something like this. I suggest you should feel free to hate pedophiles, Muslims, or gays - we don't want thought police, after all. I suggest you should be free to publicly declare that you hate any or all of these groups - as long as you aren't making accusations about them that you cannot reasonably support. As soon as you move to forming a congregation in a public place to make a lot of noise about this hatred, however, I think you are…</p>
<p>Yes, well I like to get down to brass tacks on something like this. I suggest you should feel free to hate pedophiles, Muslims, or gays - we don't want thought police, after all. I suggest you should be free to publicly declare that you hate any or all of these groups - as long as you aren't making accusations about them that you cannot reasonably support. As soon as you move to forming a congregation in a public place to make a lot of noise about this hatred, however, I think you are crossing a line (avoid forming threatening crowds in public). As soon as you start organizing a system to make day to day life difficult for members of these groups, I think you are definitely crossing a line. Once you start to promote the idea that these people should be physically harmed in any way, you cross the line hook line and sinker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now if you want to promote laws that prohibit behaviors that define these groups, well you are taking part in the democratic process. At this point it is up to the politicians to ensure their laws are not inspired by hatred or unfounded accusations. If you are writing a book that criticizes any of these groups, well you should be held liable for any claims you make that are unfounded, so you better do your research rather than just typing out a ranting narrative of hatred. If the act of molesting children destroys the potential for the happiness of those children, well why not back that up with the results of some peer reviewed studies? If many pedophiles take part in insidiously predatorial behavoirs, then why not be specific and elucidate, along with providing some crime statistics? Is this too much to ask?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How am I doing here?</p> Hmm.. That is a very thought…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6402542011-04-28T21:39:10.091ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Hmm.. That is a very thought provoking answer.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it leads to a more personal conclusion that there is a part of me that hates the acts of religion as much as I hate the act of pedophilia. I don't allow myself to give hate speech about pedofiles, the persons behind the act, they are mentally ill and should be accomodated for treatment. But their acts I do want the ability to state exactly what I feel about, including hate speech.</p>
<p>But if everyone is able to…</p>
<p>Hmm.. That is a very thought provoking answer.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it leads to a more personal conclusion that there is a part of me that hates the acts of religion as much as I hate the act of pedophilia. I don't allow myself to give hate speech about pedofiles, the persons behind the act, they are mentally ill and should be accomodated for treatment. But their acts I do want the ability to state exactly what I feel about, including hate speech.</p>
<p>But if everyone is able to distinguish between hating acts and persons I'm not so sure about, so I guess <span style="text-decoration: underline;">you are right</span> in a social cohesion standpoint.</p> Well I think most people coul…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6402072011-04-28T21:18:00.353ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
<p>Well I think most people could see a big difference between a speech that says pedophiles cannot, by their nature, be trusted with custody of children and another speech that says pedophiles are seeking to rape your children and therefore killing them is the only way to protect society.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I should be free to hate you, and even hate your group. I think I should also be free to declare that I personally hate a particular group. Once I cross the line of proclaiming it is the…</p>
<p>Well I think most people could see a big difference between a speech that says pedophiles cannot, by their nature, be trusted with custody of children and another speech that says pedophiles are seeking to rape your children and therefore killing them is the only way to protect society.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I should be free to hate you, and even hate your group. I think I should also be free to declare that I personally hate a particular group. Once I cross the line of proclaiming it is the moral duty of all people who share my beliefs to throw rocks at or kill people of a particular group, well then I'm crossing a line that is, at least, very obvious to me - and I hope that it is obvious to others.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I personally feel that even if a person is a pedophile they should be afforded the right to walk down the street without fearing that there are those who would attack them or kill them for being a pedophile. I feel that we need to find ways to protect our children but I do not feel anyone should have the right to incite violence against any group.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Of course there would need to be an exception for acts of war declared by the government. That is all I have to say about that. (for now)</p> Om am far from convinced abou…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6401582011-04-28T20:35:57.297ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>Om am far from convinced about my support for banning hate speech all together. Since (effective) hate speech generally is directed downwards by someone who holds power, either through vote majority or otherwise, It's essentially a protection of those who hold least power.</p>
<p>Blacks were detested for a long time in our societies and deprived of power. It's getting better but we are not there yet. But they have definately taken ownership of the hate speech, there's only people of a…</p>
<p>Om am far from convinced about my support for banning hate speech all together. Since (effective) hate speech generally is directed downwards by someone who holds power, either through vote majority or otherwise, It's essentially a protection of those who hold least power.</p>
<p>Blacks were detested for a long time in our societies and deprived of power. It's getting better but we are not there yet. But they have definately taken ownership of the hate speech, there's only people of a certain skintype that can get away with the n-word. Homosexuals is another target of hate speech, but they already held so many position of power that normalization has been quick, and they took ownership of language that was previously hate speech, such as queer and gay.</p>
<p>The latest incarnation of this language of hate is of course directed towards Islam. But it wasn't hate speech laws that has allieviated the problems, it was just repetition till noone could stand listen to it any longer and just face that their bigotry had to be hidden to be a member of society. Hate speech laws deprive Islam of that.</p>
<p>In addition, Islam does have a lot about it one can legitemately hate - blacks and homosexuals never did. </p> Agreed. Here in Canada the H…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6401492011-04-28T20:20:11.853ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
Agreed. Here in Canada the Hate Crimes bill bars one from inciting hatred, including any attempt to convince others that harm should come to a particular group. As far as I know, to date no one has used this law to prosecute those who try to teach from Romans, Chapter 1.
Agreed. Here in Canada the Hate Crimes bill bars one from inciting hatred, including any attempt to convince others that harm should come to a particular group. As far as I know, to date no one has used this law to prosecute those who try to teach from Romans, Chapter 1. Freedom of speech does not al…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6400022011-04-28T18:25:34.891ZJim Minionhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JimMinion
<p>Freedom of speech does not allow for criminal acts.</p>
<p>The burning of books I don't find in anyway an expression of free speech even if the courts would disagree with me. People burn books to limit access to the information, if you look throughout history when books were being burned someone rights were being messed with. What is going on is a form of bigotry, Islam has taken the place of the USSR as America's base fear to keep the military machine running at full tilt.</p>
<p>Freedom of speech does not allow for criminal acts.</p>
<p>The burning of books I don't find in anyway an expression of free speech even if the courts would disagree with me. People burn books to limit access to the information, if you look throughout history when books were being burned someone rights were being messed with. What is going on is a form of bigotry, Islam has taken the place of the USSR as America's base fear to keep the military machine running at full tilt.</p> I wasn't giving a choice betw…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6398392011-04-28T15:20:41.349ZArcushttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Arcus
<p>I wasn't giving a choice between two scenarios, just an example of speech which would clearly not be protected, thus no dichtonomy involved, much less a false one. You could possibly cry slippery slope fallacy, but since no clear set of rules was offered, things do tend to end up on a slippery slope until a set of rules have been established.</p>
<p>Anyway, the free speech zones are not designed to limit free speech per se, just to provide an arena where free speech can flourish without…</p>
<p>I wasn't giving a choice between two scenarios, just an example of speech which would clearly not be protected, thus no dichtonomy involved, much less a false one. You could possibly cry slippery slope fallacy, but since no clear set of rules was offered, things do tend to end up on a slippery slope until a set of rules have been established.</p>
<p>Anyway, the free speech zones are not designed to limit free speech per se, just to provide an arena where free speech can flourish without interrupting society more than needed. As Misty eloquently pointed out, there is an issue of public safety involved, and though this is not a good argument for denying anyone their free speech of saying what they want, it is a good argument to regulate the where and a decent one to regulate the when. The how is generally self-regulated by the social understanding of timing and means accessible.</p> What is this fetish with free…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6395632011-04-28T04:38:16.505ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
<p>What is this fetish with freedom of speech anyway? Does it also entail freedom from liability for slanderous speech? Does it include immunity from felony prosecution for murders incited by hate speech? Does it deflect criminal charges when death threats are made? At what point do people accept that there are in fact limits on where, when, and what you can say? This applies to expression as well. If you don't believe me, try walking around an African American oriented institution of…</p>
<p>What is this fetish with freedom of speech anyway? Does it also entail freedom from liability for slanderous speech? Does it include immunity from felony prosecution for murders incited by hate speech? Does it deflect criminal charges when death threats are made? At what point do people accept that there are in fact limits on where, when, and what you can say? This applies to expression as well. If you don't believe me, try walking around an African American oriented institution of some sort swinging a hangman's noose by your side.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There should be absolutely no special privilege of religion in these matters at all. Everyone should be able to feel safe walking the streets and no one should be making death threats against any group that they belong to, whether they belong to it by nature, nurture, indoctrination or informed consent - Freedom of speech should not extend to those who would make death threats against such groups or espouse the virtues of putting members of that group to death; just say 'no' to Paul's Epistle to the Romans Chapter 1.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Burning a text that is the official emblem of a group is not freedom of expression, it's just plain maliciously designed to incite and invoke hatred and anger. It's sickening to see a municipality have to deal with this through improvised use of bylaws and city resources. This is an issue that should be recognized at the highest levels of government for just what it is so they can legislate the power for police and courts to deal with it directly.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A text that incites and invokes hatred, espousing virtue in violence, murder, and intolerance, should be categorized as containing Adult content and kept away from children. Teachings from such a book that include such lessons that violate human rights should be prosecutable as a hate crime on the spot - how does the freedom to make speeches on the virtue of killing gays or people of particular religious beliefs constitute anything of virtue? How is this not recognized as compromising security of person and therefore negating the freedom to express such views?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This world has truly gone mad.</p> False dichotomy. As was poin…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-28:1982180:Comment:6395422011-04-28T04:17:58.301ZGalenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Galen
False dichotomy. As was pointed out, your rights end where another person's begin. The scenario you describe would be "disturbing the peace" which is a violation of existing laws. That's quite a bit different than a city government making shit up on the spot for the express purpose of denying someone their right to free speech. It's just not the same thing at all.
False dichotomy. As was pointed out, your rights end where another person's begin. The scenario you describe would be "disturbing the peace" which is a violation of existing laws. That's quite a bit different than a city government making shit up on the spot for the express purpose of denying someone their right to free speech. It's just not the same thing at all.